Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It has been really refreshing that the coalition has put up some of its more sensible, rational and measured speakers for this debate today rather than the attack-dog whistle that we have seen in recent days from the likes of Senator Abetz—simply over the Greens daring to ask questions in the Australian parliament about a new deployment of our Defence personnel in a war zone. And I welcome that. That is what this is about. This is about having a debate and considering these things.

Last night at the UNHCR briefing organised by my colleague Senator Hanson-Young I heard a very emotional Tim Costello talk about the shame he personally felt after spending four years in the refugee camps around Syria, in Lebanon and in other places—his shame at not being able to convince the Australian public that this was catastrophic, an enormous crisis waiting to happen. And he was relieved last night that finally the penny had dropped. In fact, I think the words he used were that the bubble has now burst in the public consciousness on what is going on in the Middle East, especially around Syria. I think a lot of Australians like me are sitting at home now, watching TV, having discussions around barbecues, talking about these things and asking themselves the question: how did we get to this situation? It is fine for Senator Reynolds to come in here and misrepresent the views of this bill. If Senator Reynolds had been here she would know that the Greens have made it very clear in previous debates that this bill does not impact operational matters for the military; it is a debate about an initial deployment, under limited conditions—very much like what we have seen overseas.

What we also found out last night from the Reverend Tim Costello was that in a place like Syria, thanks to arms being smuggled in from, in his words, Russia and America, it is actually harder to put a banana in the hands of a Syrian than it is a weapon. His points were very poignant. He said that peace is the first line of defence but if you cannot have peace then aid should be the first line of defence. They are severely lacking in aid, but the world has woken up to the fact that in Syria and around Syria we now have a global crisis, a catastrophe, a human tragedy of proportions that we have not seen since the Second World War. We all acknowledge that, and we congratulated the government for listening to the Australian people and implementing an emergency refugee intake. But on the same day they did that, they could not resist making an announcement that they were extending the scope of Australian military operations in Syria.

Australians at their barbecues or having discussions around the dinner table will be asking: to what point has our military strategy got us up until now? How did it get to the point where four million people have had to flee? When we were speaking to our experts last night they also made it very clear that the reason we are seeing this exodus into places like Europe is that a lot of these refugees have actually given up hope that they can go home. The war has taken that long and has been that disruptive and destructive that they have given up hope, so they are now seeking a new life. This is the point we have to focus on.

At the end of his presentation to us last night, Amin Awad said something. He is the guy on the ground for UNHCR, the key guy in the Middle East who has to deal with this crisis, and I have to say, on R U OK Day, that I was looking at him last night on the TV—at the colour of his eyes, at the colour of his skin, at how tired he looked—and thinking what an incredible strain it would be to have his job. But what he said last night is very important. He said that for all the work UNHCR does, all the aid you can give them and all the refugees you can take, it is to no avail without a peace agreement. I asked him about that. I said that 'peace agreement' are two words that you will not hear in this country from this government. I asked what he meant by 'peace agreement': is there something afoot? Could he elaborate? And he said—and I must say, his answer was very terse, and I would have liked him to have elaborated a lot more—that what we need is global leadership, like we saw in Bosnia, where an impossible situation was resolved through a process that was no doubt long and convoluted. I have no doubt that Senator Fawcett's words tonight were on the money, that these things will not happen straightaway. But Amin Awad said that in Bosnia they had leadership, and eventually, through all sorts of coercions, including military action, a truce to cease fire was achieved.

It was good to hear this morning that at least Julie Bishop—unlike the other attack dogs in this government who love conflict in this parliament and in this society, who have relied on division for their polling numbers—engaged in this frame. And, as I think Senator Fawcett very poignantly pointed out to the parliament this afternoon, any long-term solution is of course going to have to go beyond military means and look at a whole range of different options, including geopolitical considerations, towards a peace agreement. But we have not actually had that conversation in this country, and it was only today, following the UNHCR briefing, that this actually entered our language. Julie Bishop talked this morning about the need, at the right time and the right place, for a peace agreement. At least we have got that far.

What have we achieved in this parliamentary debate today and by raising this in parliament yesterday? Thank you Senator Hanson-Young for organising an amazing forum last night. It had me close to tears when I actually realised the human catastrophe that is unfolding. I sometimes feel that putting a human face to this is the last thing our government wants us to see. Thank you for pointing that out, because like a lot of other Australians I am now awake to this and I am asking questions—where do we go from here?

When I did media this morning, I said that I do not know what a peace agreement would look like or if it is even feasible yet. But we need to start talking about how we can get a diplomatic solution to this crisis so that these people can return home and so their country can be rebuilt. If we start that conversation, no matter how brief and how stilted, at least we will have started it. I think a lot of other Australians are probably asking themselves the same thing, and they are saying that what we are doing now is not working.

Getting to the bill: I have experienced in this parliament a similar debate—or a tussle, a tug-of-war—between the executive and the parliament in the area of trade negotiations. I have learned from my experience that the big parties—Labor and Liberal—do not want to give up executive power, especially around treaties and the special powers the executive has under our Constitution. It is no different for war powers. What we are actually suggesting is eminently sensible for parliament: for each and every one of us to get up here and debate the deployment of our Defence personnel. Let me get it on record: the Greens support our Defence personnel. That is why we ask these questions, because we want to make sure that they are not being used as political tools or toys by any government and that they only go to war as a last resort—when it is absolutely necessary. That is what this is about.

As I said yesterday in this chamber, I believe that Defence personnel will respect the fact that there are people asking questions about this and asking for debate. We are not criticising them. I personally have an incredible amount of respect for all the Defence personnel that I know and have met. I save my contempt for a government that sends them into unnecessary and immoral wars. On that point, why are the Greens putting this motion up and asking this question? And why are Australians discussing this around the dinner table? Because they do not trust the executive to make these decisions. Not only did this government totally politicise national security in the last 12 months, with the help of the Murdoch press—I would dearly love to use a swear word on this next point, but I won't—but also they totally screwed up in 2003 by invading Iraq.

I read David Kilcullen's quarterly essay Blood Year and I recommend that everybody reads it to get the background to what Mr Kilcullen says. He was an expert, an Australian working with Condoleezza Rice in the US during the insurgency in Iraq. He makes it very clear what a total screw up it was, how unnecessary it was and how—and this is what I would like Senator Reynolds to have heard if she had been in the chamber—it led to the rise of Isis or Daesh, not to mention the deaths of hundreds and thousands, if not millions, of people. So excuse me for being sceptical about a government—a Liberal government—that took us to awar in 2003 that we did not need to have on the same proviso, the same messaging, that we are getting in this chamber today about eradicating and killing bad guys.

That sounds intuitive. I think all of us would like to see the end of Isis, but it did not work in 2003 when we got rid of Saddam Husain—that has backfired. Isis has made it very clear that they want us to go in and drop more bombs and they want us to commit soldiers—the likely escalation of this conflict. They are totally, criminally insane and mad. This is what they want, and this is what we are giving them. This is what they want; it is a brilliant recruiting tool.

I heard Senator Back, who I have a lot of respect for, as I heard Senator Fawcett, talk about the awful atrocities that Isis have perpetuated in the Middle East. I have to say today that I still do not get why those atrocities are so often and so clearly shown by elements of our media in this country and overseas, because that is also what Isis wants—making front page headlines with photographs of people being beheaded. I do not think that is a good thing. Why give these bastards what they want?

We are at a juncture here where it is right for Australians to be sceptical about our military involvement in Iraq. Any reasonable, rational person will be having doubts, and the only way we can deal with those doubts is to have a proper debate—a parliamentary debate—where we, as the elected representatives of the Australian people and in our positions of power, can put this on the record for them, because they are asking these questions.

Although I would love to take up my remaining time, I respect Senator Xenophon enough to know that he only has 10 minutes left before the clock ticks over. So I would say that this is a lot deeper than some of the shallow arguments that we have seen in the last few days about the Greens asking questions. We are asking questions for a very good reason and I am glad that someone is.